R1b-U152/S28 : more Gaulish or Roman ?

[Vallicanus]

Your whole debate is unsound since you have not deviated from your pet unjustifiable theory of linking Lombards and U-152.

Why do you care about European matters anyway.

At least I am of Italian extraction and take a deep interest in the subject of the Lombards and R1b-U152.

All the autosomal and genome-wide studies mention the Southern European nature of North Italians while as I have repeated, as shown in the R1b map, R1-U152 is most characteristic of NORTH-WEST Italy not all of the north.

 

[MOESAN]

it is not present in parts of UK & Ireland that were Celtic, also absent from Wales where according to Steven Bird one can expect more people originating from Roman soldiers... and it is present in Germanic settled parts of UK...

and it was not only Langobards, north Italy was also settled by other Germanic people who could have carried it...e.g. Goths and Franks, Gepids...

north Italy was for long time under control of various Germanic tribes...

I am late to answer these affirmations (I don't put hypothesis into here, but only %s -
I have a survey (I did not note the origin) about Ireland-G-B (3 localisations in Scotland, 4 in Ireland, 5 in England and 1 only in NORTH WALES/
For N-Wales it says:
R-U152: 7,5% (of R1b, it is to say: of 82% maybe>> 6% of the total) R-L21: 45%, R-U106: 9,2% -
it is not big but not insignifiant, and Wales was celtized surely before the La Tène period, as Ireland so it is not surprising finding weak percentages of the U152 -
in this survey they found only between 1,1 to 1,4% of the R1b that was U152 in Ireland, except EASTERN IRELAND: U152: 4% or R1b '3% of the total there)
I add, when speaking about Wales, let's keep in mind there are 'archaïcal' regions as opposed to immigration regions (industrial South and extreme N-E) and that the central eastern Wales appears very "germanized" genetically (and partially phenotypically, this last point for the ones that have huge doubts about classical anthropology usefulness...

 

[MOESAN]

also Y-DNA is about small part of genes that is inhereted in direct male line from grandgrandfather to grandfather, from grandfather to father, from father to son, and invading tribes often leave much higher imprint in Y-DNA than in the rest of the genes...

Yes, but it is true for invading warriors factions composed of only males - but when we speak about colonization by a big number of persons, all the genes carried by the newcomers (males & females) are transmitted to descendants...

 

[Dubhthach]

is not big but not insignifiant, and Wales was celtized surely before the La Tène period, as Ireland so it is not surprising finding weak percentages of the U152 -in this survey they found only between 1,1 to 1,4% of the R1b that was U152 in Ireland, except EASTERN IRELAND: U152: 4% or R1b '3% of the total there)
I add, when speaking about Wales, let's keep in mind there are 'archaïcal' regions as opposed to immigration regions (industrial South and extreme N-E) and that the central eastern Wales appears very "germanized" genetically (and partially phenotypically, this last point for the ones that have huge doubts about classical anthropology usefulness...

How many of the Irish U152 had native Irish surnames? In general U152+ samples from Ireland tend to have a high level of non-native surnames. Eastern Ireland of course having the highest input from the 12th century AD onwards. The Pale been the area around Dublin. Thence to be "beyond the pale" implies Gaelic Irish society (eg. native Irish society) during the middle ages.

 

[MOESAN]

How many of the Irish U152 had native Irish surnames? In general U152+ samples from Ireland tend to have a high level of non-native surnames. Eastern Ireland of course having the highest input from the 12th century AD onwards. The Pale been the area around Dublin. Thence to be "beyond the pale" implies Gaelic Irish society (eg. native Irish society) during the middle ages.

I agree (relying on you for the surnames because I have no big knowledge about the links concerning patronymics and HG's in the "green island" even if I know that some clans present very tight links with precise HG's there - I was just giving some percentages (for Wales upon all) found in small enough samples ...
slàinte!

 

[Taranis]

I have moved the discussion about the Veneti/Venedi/Wends etc. into a separate thread.

 

[julia90]

i think it's italic.

about the proximity of italic-celtic if steaming from a same ancestor, then we should consider italic tribes an elite who inhabitated italy, if not italians would look like central europeans.

Where did the italic tribes entere Italy from?
They entered from north-east italy, because previously the italic tribes have lived in Pannonia
So, if there were a contact between italic tribes with celtic tribes it should be in Pannonia.

Pannonia
It is in present day western Hungary, eastern Austria, Northern Croatia, North-western Serbia, Slovenia, western Slovakia and northern Bosnia Herzegovina

 

[MOESAN]

just a little word
I do not remember if it was on this thread or on one about map of Y-RU152/L28 but I red sometimes and somewhere of Hallstatt culture as it would be an homogenous ethnic culture: but my old readings "told" me the Western Hallstatt region was almost sure celtic but the Eastern Hallstatt region was something else ... ?
yet we had the same problem with the Urnfields Culture -

 

[alais]

What origin is Scottish Borders, U152+, L2+, L20- (L2*), then?

Celt? I'm just asking.

 

[alais]

i think it's italic.

What does mean italic? U-152 is italic?

 

[MOESAN]

What I wonder about on the map with the distribution of R1b-U152 is the area of Austria and Bohemia. This was the heartland of the early Hallstatt culture, but U152 is relatively rare there today. Could this be an artifact of the migrations period, or the sign of some completely different pattern?

Hallstatt is a culturel term comprising time and place I believe - but someones, asH. HUBERT thought There was 2 Hallstatt regions arounsd the 'cradle': a western one, celtic according to him, and an other in the eastern part, maybe illyrian, I do not know - I believe U152 is not I-E (but I want not fight today about that, because I'm still "my bottom between two chairs") but furnished a lot of alpine people to the I-E acculturators - If Italics was coming from Hungaria or S.Austria-N.Croatia, so they was not Y-R-U152 as a majority - I mean the Celts or early celtized people was the majority of U152 bearers - maybe some Italics could have incorportated U152 bearers during the Urnfield movements (because there have been movements caused by a big enough demographic rising, despite the "no-movement-history" supporters -
so it is not so astonishing that U152 is seldom in Austria (1- I was not too present at the beginning and 2- historic other movements can have erased the previous inhabitants...)

 

[MOESAN]

- If Italics was coming from Hungaria or S.Austria-N.Croatia, so they was not Y-R-U152 as a majority - I mean the Celts or early celtized people was the majority of U152 bearers - maybe some Italics could have incorportated U152 bearers during the Urnfield movements (because there have been movements caused by a big enough demographic rising, despite the "no-movement-history" supporters -
so it is not so astonishing that U152 is seldom in Austria (1- I was not too present at the beginning and 2- historic other movements can have erased the previous inhabitants...)

I answer myself here: the 'italic hypothesis' for U152 is not completely out of work: U152 could have been swept towards the West by the deplacing of Italics and have been replaced by new HGs (Slavs? Illyrians?) in present day Pannonia (N-Croatia S-Austria) I have in mind (suddenly) the likely links between Lusacian culture and Villanova and the presence of some Y-U152 in Western Poland- what is sure is that Empire Romans was a mix of true Italics and other peoples, the weight of Italics decreasing from North to South so it remains hard to decide, U152 could have been present among Ligurians and Rhaetians too... I'm afraid it could by a question without answer...
other question: when came the first Italics in Italy ?

 

[zanipolo]

I answer myself here: the 'italic hypothesis' for U152 is not completely out of work: U152 could have been swept towards the West by the deplacing of Italics and have been replaced by new HGs (Slavs? Illyrians?) in present day Pannonia (N-Croatia S-Austria) I have in mind (suddenly) the likely links between Lusacian culture and Villanova and the presence of some Y-U152 in Western Poland- what is sure is that Empire Romans was a mix of true Italics and other peoples, the weight of Italics decreasing from North to South so it remains hard to decide, U152 could have been present among Ligurians and Rhaetians too... I'm afraid it could by a question without answer...
other question: when came the first Italics in Italy ?

according to Greek historians, they named Italy and it comprised of mainland italy only from the Po river to the toe. The only tribes the greeks associated with Italy at the time was Umbrians ( from the Po to rome ) and the osci ( from rome to the toe) there where sub-tribes like the sabines belonging to the umbrians as an example.

The Ligures where not Italic at this time, nor where etruscans, venetics, latins, sicels, raeti and more

I think this marker developed from non-italic people that where in northwest Italy as well as swiss and western austrian lands. there migration was always south or east at the start

 

[MOESAN]

according to Greek historians, they named Italy and it comprised of mainland italy only from the Po river to the toe. The only tribes the greeks associated with Italy at the time was Umbrians ( from the Po to rome ) and the osci ( from rome to the toe) there where sub-tribes like the sabines belonging to the umbrians as an example.

The Ligures where not Italic at this time, nor where etruscans, venetics, latins, sicels, raeti and more

I think this marker developed from non-italic people that where in northwest Italy as well as swiss and western austrian lands. there migration was always south or east at the start

are you thinking Italic tribes colonized Italy in a single wave of advance? Do you distinguish between linguistic latin 'Qw-' (I think Sabines and Sabellians was of the same stock) and osco-ombrian 'P- italic speakers??? and what about the Sicels and Sicans ??? are you telling me Latins was not Italics??? or just their name was not known by Greeks at this time?

reading anthropology books I red someone saying that about -3000 a distinct colonization took place in Italy coming by North (continent) an not by sea, that brought there (northern half of Italy but on the eastern side not the Thyrrenian Sea) at the middle-late Néolithic time phenotypes that he supposed was coming from the central Balkans, because they showed a mixture of 'dinaroid' wirh a kind of 'mediterranean' of more eastern affiliation than the previous ones present there before -
another problem could be the language of these colonisators? I-E yet??? just a question arrived to soon for me at this moment.
good evening

 

[zanipolo]

are you thinking Italic tribes colonized Italy in a single wave of advance? Do you distinguish between linguistic latin 'Qw-' (I think Sabines and Sabellians was of the same stock) and osco-ombrian 'P- italic speakers??? and what about the Sicels and Sicans ??? are you telling me Latins was not Italics??? or just their name was not known by Greeks at this time?

reading anthropology books I red someone saying that about -3000 a distinct colonization took place in Italy coming by North (continent) an not by sea, that brought there (northern half of Italy but on the eastern side not the Thyrrenian Sea) at the middle-late Néolithic time phenotypes that he supposed was coming from the central Balkans, because they showed a mixture of 'dinaroid' wirh a kind of 'mediterranean' of more eastern affiliation than the previous ones present there before -
another problem could be the language of these colonisators? I-E yet??? just a question arrived to soon for me at this moment.
good evening

Latins are not italics but where southern etruscan tribe that resided on the extreme southern etruscan border of the tiber river

 

[Vallicanus]

Latins are not Italics but where southern Etruscan tribe that resided on the extreme southern etruscan border of the tiber river

How do you explain the fact that the Latin language was Indo-European while Etruscan (most experts see it as non-IE) was a completely different language.

 

[zanipolo]

How do you explain the fact that the Latin language was Indo-European while Etruscan (most experts see it as non-IE) was a completely different language.

Latin as we know it began 75BC, ancient Latin 450BC.

The romans learnt to read and write and learn the alphabet from the etruscans, reinforced by the rule of the tarquins ( etruscans)

Etruscans arrived in italy between 800-900BC, the latin came from the etruscan, between these years and 450BC and slowly developed into "modern" latin in 75BC

 

[Taranis]

Latin as we know it began 75BC, ancient Latin 450BC.

The romans learnt to read and write and learn the alphabet from the etruscans, reinforced by the rule of the tarquins ( etruscans)

Etruscans arrived in italy between 800-900BC, the latin came from the etruscan, between these years and 450BC and slowly developed into "modern" latin in 75BC

That's nonsense, Zanipolo. Latin is an Italic language, it didn't "come from Etruscan", it evolved from Proto-Italic along with the Osco-Umbrian languages. The Romans adopted the Etruscan alphabet, yes, but so did most other people in Italy. That doesn't make them Etruscan however.

 

[zanipolo]

That's nonsense, Zanipolo. Latin is an Italic language, it didn't "come from Etruscan", it evolved from Proto-Italic along with the Osco-Umbrian languages. The Romans adopted the Etruscan alphabet, yes, but so did most other people in Italy. That doesn't make them Etruscan however.

Many sites are against what you say like ancientscripts.com, omliglot.com and many others.

Lets look at this logically.

IF you believe the roman historians, they came from trojans, Aeneas after 1080BC . These trojans spoke Luwian .......what is this?

If you do not believe the story above, and you believe they where always where they where, then why no language has been found before 450BC.
What is fact, is the etruscans arrived in italy around 800-1000BC they had a language already and written evidence is present from 700BC to 100AD
- etrusan is not lydian language as lydian is a I-P language.
- Etruscans got there alphabet from eurboea .
- the romans learnt writing and took the etruscan alphabet from the etruscans and started to convert some letters around 600BC

- The etruscan empire incorporated the latins for over 300 years, what did the latins speak at that time?
- The tarquins ( etruscans) ruled Rome for over 100 years bringing in etruscan people, what did the latins speak at that time?
- old latin language ranged from 450BC to 75BC.
- Romans still got their sons to learn etruscan in school at Caere in 310BC
- etruscan language changed writing system to left to right in 350 BC.

Do you not think that the latins had no other language until around 600BC except etruscan as etruscan ruled these lands for so long.

Its not as if etruscan was a weak language as they communicated with veneti who spoke a I-P language called venetic.

what or who do you believe are the Latins ( Romans) at the time of the etruscan bronze age

 

[Taranis]

Many sites are against what you say like ancientscripts.com, omliglot.com and many others.

I'm pretty sure they do not.

Lets look at this logically.

IF you believe the roman historians, they came from trojans, Aeneas after 1080BC . These trojans spoke Luwian .......what is this?

That's not logical. That's what the Romans believed.

Regardless of that, we also do not know what language the Trojans spoke. It's possible that they spoke an Anatolian language (such as Luwian).

If you do not believe the story above, and you believe they where always where they where, then why no language has been found before 450BC.

Actually, evidence for Latin dates back approximately 2 centuries further. Even then, just because no written samples are available before that time doesn't mean the language wasn't there? You don't really believe that, do you?

What is fact, is the etruscans arrived in italy around 800-1000BC they had a language already and written evidence is present from 700BC to 100AD
- etrusan is not lydian language as lydian is a I-P language.
- Etruscans got there alphabet from eurboea .
- the romans learnt writing and took the etruscan alphabet from the etruscans and started to convert some letters around 600BC

- The etruscan empire incorporated the latins for over 300 years, what did the latins speak at that time?
- The tarquins ( etruscans) ruled Rome for over 100 years bringing in etruscan people, what did the latins speak at that time?

Just no. Just because they were dominated by the Etruscans doesn't mean the language disappeared from one day to another. To pick some different examples: after the Romans had taken Gaul, it took centuries for the Gaulish language to completely become extinct (which probably didn't happen until the early Frankish period). In the year 1795, Poland was participated between Prussia, Austria-Hungary and Russia and effectively disappeared off the map, and that didn't mean that the Polsh language disappeared over night.

- old latin language ranged from 450BC to 75BC.
- Romans still got their sons to learn etruscan in school at Caere in 310BC
- etruscan language changed writing system to left to right in 350 BC.

Do you not think that the latins had no other language until around 600BC except etruscan as etruscan ruled these lands for so long.

What I wrote above.

Its not as if etruscan was a weak language as they communicated with veneti who spoke a I-P language called venetic.

I have no idea what you're trying to say there.

what or who do you believe are the Latins ( Romans) at the time of the etruscan bronze age

It would have been a language closer to Proto-Italic. We obviously don't know when Proto-Italic was spoken, but it must have been during the Bronze Age.